1. Esophageal pressure as estimation of pleural pressure: a study in a model of eviscerated chest.
- Author
-
Florio G, Carlesso E, Mojoli F, Madotto F, Vivona L, Minaudo C, Battistin M, Colombo SM, Gatti S, Sosio S, Pesenti A, Grasselli G, and Zanella A
- Subjects
- Animals, Swine, Manometry methods, Esophagus physiology, Positive-Pressure Respiration methods, Pressure
- Abstract
Background: Transpulmonary pressure is the effective pressure across the lung parenchyma and has been proposed as a guide for mechanical ventilation. The pleural pressure is challenging to directly measure in clinical setting and esophageal manometry using esophageal balloon catheters was suggested for estimation. However, the accuracy of using esophageal pressure to estimate pleural pressure is debated due to variability in the mechanical properties of respiratory system, esophagus and esophageal catheter. Furthermore, while a vertical pleural pressure gradient exists across lung regions, esophageal pressure balloon provides a single value, representing, at most, the pressure surrounding the esophagus., Methods: In a swine model with a preserved esophagus and a single homogenous, easily measurable intrathoracic pressure, we evaluated esophageal pressure's agreement with intrathoracic pressure at different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels (0, 5, 10, 15 cmH
2 O). We assessed the improvement of measurement accuracy by correcting absolute esophageal values using a previously described technique, that accounts for the pressure generated by the esophageal wall in response to esophageal balloon inflation. The study involved five swine, wherein two different esophageal catheters were used alongside the four distinct PEEP levels. Swings, uncorrected and corrected absolute esophageal pressures (end-inspiratory, end-expiratory) were compared with their respective intrathoracic pressures. The effect of correction technique was assessed with manual incremental step inflation procedure., Results: We found that both catheters significantly overestimated absolute esophageal pressure compared to intrathoracic pressure (5.01 ± 3.32 and 6.06 ± 5.62 cmH2 O at end-expiration and end-inspiration, respectively), with error increasing at higher positive end-expiratory pressure levels (end-expiration: 2.36 ± 2.03, 3.77 ± 1.37, 6.24 ± 2.51 and 7.69 ± 4.02 for each PEEP level, P < 0.0001; end-inspiration: 1.71 ± 2.10, 3.70 ± 1.73, 7.67 ± 3.62 and 11.14 ± 7.60 for each PEEP level, P = 0.0004). Applying the correction technique significantly improved agreement for absolute values (0.82 ± 1.62 and 1.86 ± 3.94 cmH2 O at end-expiration and end-inspiration, respectively). Esophageal pressure swings accurately estimated intrathoracic pressure swings at low-medium intrathoracic pressures (-0.64 ± 0.62, -0.07 ± 0.53, 1.43 ± 1.51, and 3.45 ± 3.94 at PEEP 0, 5, 10 and 15 cmH2 O, respectively; P = 0.0197)., Conclusions: The correction technique, based on the mechanical response of esophageal wall to the balloon inflation, is fundamental for obtaining reliable estimations of absolute intrathoracic pressure values, and for ensuring its correct application in clinical setting., Competing Interests: Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was approved by the Italian Ministry of Health (permit number: 463/2018-PR, June 22, 2018), thus no specifical approval was required. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests Dr. Pesenti reports personal fees from Baxter, Maquet, Boehringer Ingelheim and Xenios outside the submitted work. Dr. Grasselli reports personal fees from Maquet, Draeger, Pfizer, Thermo Fisher, MSD and Gilead outside the submitted work. Dr. Mojoli reports personal fees for lectures from GE Healthcare, Seda Spa, Hamilton Medical. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflict of interest., (© 2024. The Author(s).)- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF